Replies

I’m not excusing the RINO’s in the Senate, nor those in the House **cough, cough, Paul Ryan, etc.**, but let’s get this straight: The law clearly states this is the province of the executive branch to enforce immigration law.

The law clearly states this is the province of the executive branch to enforce immigration law.

So it is. But the law does NOT say that it is province of the exec branch to pick & choose what parts of the law to enforce. Nor does it permit them do the opposite of selected portions of the law. To do these things is de facto legislation and unconstitutional. The entire law must be enforced, at least in a real constitutional republic.

Much of what the EB has been doing for years is clearly unconstitutional. But the congress takes the attitude that since it's been going on already, it would be improper to start enforcing the Constitution now. Just let it continue.

So, if the executive branch is only going to enforce the laws it wants to enforce, in the way that it wants to enforce them, then there really isn't any point to yet another law on the books.

I think this is what some of us are saying. We don't need another law. We need to enforce the laws we have.

This reminds me of one of Clinton's dodges when he was president. Periodically he would get caught violating campaign finance laws (remember the millions from China?). Every time that happened, he would call for comprehensive campaign finance reform, and imply that it was the GOP’s fault he was violating the law. Pretty soon, here comes McCain to promote the same thing giving us the monstrosity we have now.

Now we have a president (not the first) who won't effectively enforce immigration law and he demands another law. And here come at least some Repubs doing backflips to give it to him.